Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

A case against stability


Recommended Posts

Well, I have read in past days crazy things like this: "only Mourinho can save Chelsea".

Chelsea doesnt need to be saved, and Chelsea doesnt need stability. The success of Abramovich days was built around chaos.

I think its exciting to discuss about a new manager every few seasons. It must be pretty boring to have the same manager for 25 years.

The magical moments of last season were only possible in a mad house, like Chelsea. Now Mourinho returning is a real possibility, but its only possible because RDM was sacked. Imagine RDM getting the 2 years he had in his contract, Manchester or Paris would be Mourinhos' home for next years.

Arsenal had Wenger for the past 7 years, 7 trophyless years...this season we have Benitez, perhaps we will end up with at least one trophy and with a place in next UCL and with a world class manager. Not that bad, after all.

Perhaps Mourinho will be the manager by the beginning of the 13/14 season, but it must be a short term deal (no more than 4 years). Then it will be time for another manager. Change and chaos are the way forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

lol

if it was to be debated

well Chelsea has 1 league title in 7 YEARS. And only has have to fight for scraps in the cups after sackings. No sacking has led to a league title.

The 3 league titles won have been during STABILITY under Mourinho and Ancelloti.

:D:getin::rolleyes:

You are a clown, AVB sacking led to the greatest league tittle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need stability for the next 3-4 years.

If we don't get stability, players like Hazard, Mata, Lukaku won't stick around...like unless the manager is clueless...

As a player, you'd prefer to have the same person in charge for a couple of seasons as it helps you create a stronger team chemistry and a better relationship with the manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FullEnglishBreakfast

You are a clown, AVB sacking led to the greatest league tittle.

So he has a different opinion and therefore he is a clown?

Interesting.

Change is the way forward, chaos isn't. Change needs to be impelemented with structure and finesse, not random acts of chaos and probability. AVB's sacking lead to temporary structure and balance under Di Matteo, I only saw chaos under AVB and the opposite when he was sacked.

And what's up with the constant comparison between Arsenal and Chelsea? Why do Chelsea fans always have to compre the team with Arsene Wenger and ghouls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he has a different opinion and therefore he is a clown?

Interesting.

Change is the way forward, chaos isn't. Change needs to be impelemented with structure and finesse, not random acts of chaos and probability. AVB's sacking lead to temporary structure and balance under Di Matteo, I only saw chaos under AVB and the opposite when he was sacked.

And what's up with the constant comparison between Arsenal and Chelsea? Why do Chelsea fans always have to compre the team with Arsene Wenger and ghouls?

And whats up with the constant comparison between Chelsea and Manchester? Everytime we fire a manager, someone will say "SAF had x season with no trophy, now look how many things he won after that".

You have many ways to make a club succesful, but it seems some people believe the so called stability is the only way forward. In fact who is the manager is not the most important thing, but whats behind. People fail to undertand that Alex Fergunson longevity is not the reason why Manchester is the club they are right now, same way Guardiola is not the reason behind Barcelona success.

Managers play an important role, but there is no manager in the world that will save a club, like some people are suggesting. Mourinho wont change the way the owner and the board rule the club, he will be a part in a complex structure.

Look at Bayern, they used to fire a lot of managers in the past, Louis Van Gaal won Bundesliga and led the team to the first European final in 8 years, next season he was fired due to poor results, they just found someone else to play that role, and 2 years after, the team was in that final again. Now they decided that someone better should suit that role, thats why they went after Guardiola, but Bayern dont need Guardiola to be a succesful club at all.

Mourinho won a UCL with Inter, but as soon as he left they never got those results again. Mourinho is leaving Real Madrid, but the club is pretty much the same, still wasting a lot of money for the results they are getting. The problem with the stability, is that it makes people believe everything is just fine, thy think that someday a bad manager will turn into a winner because Alex Fergunson did the same years ago.

The problem with Arsenal is not Wenger. The club just lost the desire to win big things. You know, they just spent a lot of money in a new stadium, no money for big players. It could be Mourinho at Arsenal, but with their politics they still would be a club fighting for a top 4 finish, and happy with a proud death in UCL.

Since Mourinho left, Chelsea won a UCL, a PL scoring more than 100 goals, and the record in other UCL and PL editions are pretty good for a club that never dreamed about it all 10 years ago. Chelsea are with Adidas, Samsumg for so many years now, they got new deals with Gazpron,Sauber F1 and Delta Airlines, people in the board are pretty much the same...this is what really matters, this is stability, but this kind of thing dont sell newspapers or make people check Daily Mail website, but for me this is the definitions of a club with stability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FullEnglishBreakfast

First you say the chaos brings success, then you say that José leaving Real and Inter in chaos is not success?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning, I hope everybody is in good health.

Well, that's a special topic to be honest ! Stability brings success, with the right manager, that's my point of view.Let me explain, what you are trying to tell us is that through this change of managers we won titles, yes it is true, but it only means that the players we have must play in a certain way, and dont give managers as much confidence as they deserve when the are appointed, this is a big big problem.Guardiola had the backing of the board of Barcelona (Laporta) and in his first season, he got rid of Deco, Ronaldinho, and some important player, he also wanted Eto'o to go, but his work at training won him one more season, it was a big gamble, a very big one, but he won with style and that what make him special, I dont think we'll see something like that before many many years.

I want to have one question and I hope you'll sincerely answer to it : Are you happy with the change of managers ? Do you regret the departure of José ? Do you feel it wasn't fair to sack The Special One ? You change managers hoping for results, we got great results under Carlo, why he was sacked ? Just to motivate & boost the players ?

We consistently change the manager and that what made us finishing sixth last year, its never good to be a Cup-Team, that's means you dont have enough talent or enough mental strength to win the title, it is never good to give players the power of sacking managers just like they did with AVB, ok it turned to be a great decision, but we were lucky.Its never good to buy players simply because the appointed manager loves them, soon after, they'll be benched by the other one and it goes on...

If Mourinho stayed, we also could have won Premier League titles and win the Champions League, who knows ? He had a vision, a good team, the love of the fans, we were unbeatable at home, may he could've turned things around in the 2007/2008 season and we could have won it, who knows ? And the season after, with some new signing, we could have won the league again, but that never happen and we'll never know because he was sacked.

Its better, IMO, to stick with the manager that brought you success, even if he fail one season, rather than changing every six months to boost the group, I prefer to win with the manager the board had faith in his project rather than appointing some fat one and hope for something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its exciting to discuss about a new manager every few seasons. It must be pretty boring to have the same manager for 25 years.

A long term future under Jose' wouldn't be boring, his press conferences are more entertaining than the game itself. We certainly wouldn't 'feel' like the supporters of clubs with long term managers, not with Mourinho's mind games/press madness, and overall charisma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying and it's a valid point, but I don't fully agree. We have had more success than Arsenal, because we've spent about half a billion pounds more than them. In fact, our success has been down entirely to our willingness to spend more money than anyone else. That's not new. Higher spending teams have always dominated football. When people talk about winning formulas, that's really it. Spend more than anyone, and you will consistently be near the top of your league no matter what. At some point, however, you can't be spending 5 times more than your opponents every year and I think having stability is one way to maximize the results your players can get. New managers means a new system, new players being bought, and time to adjust. I personally don't think managers matter all that much so stability could theoretically be kept in place with a strong team vision and buys that were in keeping with that vision. Our problem has not just been a steady stream of managers, it's been a steady stream of styles and different sorts of players, and impulse buys and we're left with a team that doesn't really fit together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every pundit goes on that you need stability, but if you look at people like Arsenal who haven't won anything in years and are just hanging on then what does that tell you?. It's just a typical way to get at Chelsea when they do bad and a manager gets sacked. But as for the last few managers...

Carlo was the right call, he was never the right guy for the long term, but put a good team in front of him and he can probably accomplish just as much as Mourinho.

AVB definitely the right call, we would've been relegated had we of kept him, don't get me wrong he is a fantastic manager, but he tried to imploy a system with players that couldn't play it. Also his stubborness cost us so many times, for instance the embarrasing result against Arsenal.

Di Matteo was a right call to an extent, yes the way we where going I think we would've lost a lot, but if you seriously think Benitez was going to do better then that's just retarded, because i think Di Matteo would've done a lot better. Though i think it was pretty clear Roman didn't want him in the first place, but he won two trophies one of them the biggest of all time, he pretty much had no choice.

You can't deny we have accomplished a lot, had we not of sacked this manager we wouldn't of won this blah blah blah. The only thing which i fear of Roman and we haven't really seen it yet, is that he's actually very strict and if a very good manager who has won lots of things with us doesn't win a trophy one season, then Roman will sack him. Because so far there has been a logical reason for every sacking. Ranieri's was pretty harsh, but it was the right call as we gotten Mourinho, however who was to know Mourinho would do so well? Either way he did bottle a lot of things, like the Champions League which was pretty much ours in the bag with the quality we had, but we still managed to let it slip. Though Mourinho i don't think anyone knew what happened then, did Mourinho walk out or did Roman just sack him, anyway it seemed more personal than anything else.

I just hope that Roman isn't some tyrant and is actually a person who if he believes in someone, he will put his god damn life on the line to keep him at the club regardless of what happens. Because i think we will need that manager one day who will stick with us, just have to see when that day comes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best April's fool thread so far (not that there is much contest). I won't bet my life on that it is one though, who knows, your controversialness has no limits, a beast that cannot be tamed. I think the last sentence of the OP is the most controversial ever. :worship:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had stability in the team over the past decade, maybe not with the managerial position but Cech, Terry, Lampard, Drogba etc were all there and when needed, they pushed other players to fight, they led the team. Had we changed the core of the squad as often as we did with managers, it would've been a disaster. So no, I do not agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've done great in the last decade yes, but with stability we would've done even better and dominated English football like Man Utd have done. That's my opinion. We'll never know just how good we could've been. It's been a great ride though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though I am not agree with everything that Henrique said in this topic, he has a point... The managerial stability is overrated. I strongly believe that stability is a key factor to bring you success. Although, this whole affaire about having stability with your managers is over done. Mind you, stability doesn't lie solely in the manager ! For instance, it could also lie within your board or within your squad.

In the last eight years, we have been quite successful, especially trophy wise. Is it because of the merry-go-round with managers ? No. That's because we had stability. Yes, we had — not where everybody are looking, though. In these eight seasons, where we won one Champions League, three Premier League, four FA Cup and went in three CL semis... What was the thing which has been here in all these years ? The core of our team : Drogba, Lampard, Terry and Cech. They weren't only world class players, but also our leaders. And around this core of players, you had other world-class players who have stayed a long time here and who also had a good sense of leadership. Namely : Ricardo Carvalho, Ashley Cole, Michael Essien (six years) ; Claude Makélélé (five years) Michael Ballack (four years). You even had "only" good players who were around there for a long time : Joe Cole, Paulo Ferreira (seven years) ; Salomon Kalou, John Obi Mikel (six years).

Despite having axed Mourinho, we reach the CL final, not because of Grant, but because the players were perfectly oiled (and partly thanks to Clark, also). We have done well in Champions League under Hiddink because we reverted back to the Mourinho's tactics — park the bus. Ancelotti has built his team around the Mourinho's players. We won the CL last year because we also reverted back to Mou's tactics. Every times that something went wrong, players automatically were reverting back to Mourinho's tactics.

We have had a merry-go-round with our managers, though our squad was a sole entity. Players knew well each other, they were natural born leader, they were well oiled. So yeah, we had stability — within our squad. In a way, that's kinda like if we had Mourinho all these years.

That's the same thing with Bayern and Barcelona. They didn't have managerial stability in the years 2000's. Though, they had stability else were. The German side : in its board. Managers came and went, but the heads of this club remained the same. Which means that they kept moving toward the same direction, depiste not having the same coach. That's more or less the same with Barça. Why have they been so successful ? Because of the stability within their philosophy, regarding their playing style and their academy set-up. And then, we have Manchester United who have had stability through their manager Alex Ferguson.

At the end of the day, the four most successful clubs of the last eight years had stability during that period of time. Though, the stability was in a different place for each of them. Having stability with your manager is not the only solution.

Now, that core of player is gone. We need to fix our stability else where. To my eyes, we should not try to find stability with our next manager. No, we need to keep a stability regarding the team, regarding the players we buy, regarding our playing style. We also need to build a stability within our academy systeme (it looks we are going into that direction). That's how I believe we should do. Because managers easely come and go, though the squad and the academy structure remains (more time, at least..).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been exciting no doubt. All the managerial changes, the late-season charge for the cups etc, but one case for stability is the use of the academy. earlier in the season Chelsea faced Manchester United in the league cup. United team had Wootton, Keane and even brought on Tunnicliffe and Nick Powell. It gave real experience to them and that is something that goes amiss when you have no stability.

ofcourse, one would say - why do we need youngsters when we can buy proven talent? i don't have an answer for that but i know i would prefer chelsea integrating some of the players from the academy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instability and what ten trophies? It makes for good drama I guess and makes forums like this entertaining in the long run. Personally I'd love more EPL titles but the CL doesn't hurt. English media hates us and I love it. Roman came in when all it was was just Arsenal and United trading titles and he crashed the party, took a dump in the punch bowl and it shook the league for the better, so stability can suck it I love chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henrique sorta, kinda has a point in that stability in the coach's position might not be necessary - where he's completely wrong in my opinion is that stability in itself is overrated. It's entirely necessary in my view.

We bring kids into the academy before they're 10, we sign them before they're 18 and if they make the first team they could be here for about 20 years. That's an oversimplification but there needs to be stability for that period, an overarching view of where the club wants to be heading so that plans can be made accordingly. Even over a shorter period of time that's evident. Over the last four transfer windows we've signed almost 20 players, so an average of five players per window. If you're making that type of commitment, both financial and practical, then you need to have an idea of what type of football you're wanting to play and what your needs are.

If we look at the examples thrown out you can see how that applies. Ferguson makes a particular type of signing, and it's not changed a huge amount over the last 20 years which means the people in the academy and the scouting department know exactly what they're looking for. Similarly at Arsenal you've seen a particular type of player define Wenger's first seven years in charge but there you can see a different ideology take over, one that has put economic needs ahead of ambition and it's turned into a mess. I've long said that Arsenal and Wenger have become too entwined with one another so they're in a position where they will struggle to excise him from the club. That is obviously beyond stability into co-dependence, Sid and Nancy-style.

With Barca and Bayern what you're seeing is a philosophy that transcends coaches. Here the coach is an important cog in the machine, not the engine. Whilst they may bring their own idiosyncrasies to the role but they won't re-define it. The same goes for Real Madrid, which is why I think Jose was the wrong choice for them - that role is more like a strait-jacket.

We seem to be between these two ways of running a club - we're still defined by the Mourinho period and our success in May was built on that, as well as a bit of luck. Carlo never made the team his own in my opinion and we've been drifting aimlessly in many respects since 2007.

But no discussion on this can be had without reference to one man - Michael Emenalo. At the moment, he seems to hold more sway over the direction of this club than any other. He is the stable presence.

And do you know what? In many ways we've got a more focused approach in recruitment and development than we've had for many years. You can see exactly what the club is trying to do from the players they've brought in. You can see the beginnings of a new type of development path for young players from the academy and elsewhere. You can see a unified vision of what football this club wants to be playing.

Any coach we bring in will be a short-term appointment in all likelihood (that's 3-5 years) but the club can't have a short-term view. There needs to be an ethos of what this club should be that goes beyond that. The kids that we'll want to introduce into the first team in 5 years time are 14-16 now. They need to be learning what their roles in that team might be NOW, which is why stability is a must. It just doesn't have to be sitting in the dugout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...